Depositors have no say in banks' business activities

Yes, in classic banking theory, banks lend out their customers' deposits, so if there is a big loan loss, a bank could fold and it is possible that customers won't be able to get their deposits back. However, this theory is long out of date.

A bank is a corporate entity separate from its customers (both depositors and borrowers).

As long as customers can get their deposits back with the agreed interest, which is still the case with DBS, depositors have no say in the business activities of the bank.

Banks have capital, profits and reserves, their own borrowing ability, and even a possible government bailout, with which to first fund losses (well before getting to deposits).

If anyone, it is the bank's shareholders who deserve, or have a right to ask for, an explanation, certainly not its depositors or other customers.

Gerard de Vaz

[The above is the forum letter I want to highlight. I missed the letter below which de Vaz rightly pointed out is pursuing a view with no merit. But it is a view that arises from the CPF blogger campaign to " give back our money".The letters as well as the explanation from the DBS CEO are included for a fuller picture.BTW, DBS market cap is about US$ 24 billion. $700m is about 3%. Not nothing, but won't break the bank.]

DBS must explain Swiber debacle

AUG 6, 2016

In the wake of the judicial management of energy services firm Swiber Holdings, DBS Bank owes depositors an explanation as to why it reportedly continued to lend money to the company weeks before it filed for liquidation ("High Court appoints interim judicial manager for Swiber"; Wednesday, and "Moody's flags 3 local banks' exposure / JPMorgan analysts cut rating on DBS"; yesterday).

Surely, red flags should have gone up.

Thousands of depositors are stunned at the $700 million exposure and they deserve an explanation.

DBS cannot merely say that it was totally unexpected and still within the bank's loss provision.

Christopher Tang Wai Leng

DBS caught off guard by Swiber's 'swift implosion'

AUG 9, 2016

Other offshore firms may face knock-on effects in second half of the year: Bank CEO

He added that other offshore firms could face knock-on effects in the second half of this year.

Recounting the Swiber saga, Mr Gupta noted that "Swiber imploded in six weeks". "This thing unravelled between late May and mid-July. So when people say you should have known, none of the indicators showed it," he said.

"At the end of June, Swiber had zero overdues with us on any outstanding working capital. Its order backlog was $1.35 billion in February. By every dimension, at the end of the first quarter, you would say that the company was doing well. There's nothing to tell you until March or April that there was any problem," he said at a press conference on DBS' second-quarter results.

Late last month, Swiber stunned the market by seeking to be wound up - then switching tack to place itself under judicial management.

Mr Gupta also defended the bank's decision to extend additional loans to the company, which was based on two key factors.

One was the expectation of a US$200 million (S$270 million) cash infusion that was supposedly coming from London-based private equity firm AMTC, which had expressed interest in investing in Swiber. When the investment was delayed, Swiber turned to DBS to borrow additional sums to pay off bond redemptions that were due in June.

A month later, when another bond redemption was due, DBS decided to extend additional loans because, by then, there was a real risk of the company failing as there was still no investment from AMTC.

At the time, Swiber was handling two projects that, if completed, could see the bank retrieve some money, said Mr Gupta.

"If the projects get completed, I can recover $400 million. If they don't get completed and the company folds, I'm out $400 million. It's a classic banker's dilemma. Do we put in more money to recover more or not?"

The best way for Swiber to recover money was to get the projects done, he said.

Mr Gupta also remained uncertain if AMTC's funding was still on the table, despite a Business Times report that said AMTC was still keen on the investment.

Meanwhile, Swiber said total claims against the firm totalled US$99 million as of last Thursday.

DBS' total "exposure" - that is, all its loans, bonds and guarantees - to the oil support services sector is worth about $7 billion to firms other than Swiber.

Of that total, Mr Gupta said $2.7 billion was loaned to 90 companies, and one-third of that portfolio has weakness, as some of these companies are Swiber-linked. "So there will be some contagion in the second half of this year," he said. Another $2.3 billion was to five oil services companies, one of which "has weakness".

Last month, DBS' Swiber exposure rose about $70 million to $721 million. Of that, $403 million was to finance two projects, $197 million was for bond redemptions - repaying investors who bought bonds - in June and July, and $121 million was for mainly secured term loans for vessels, property and hedging purposes.

"Two-thirds of our exposure were in loans, and one-third in other credit exposures such as performance bonds," DBS chief financial officer Chng Sok Hui said.

The bank has set aside $400 million of allowances for its exposure to Swiber. Of this, DBS drew down $250 million from its own general allowance reserves, a fund that banks have to set aside for rainy days, while it took a charge of $150 million.

It expects to recover Swiber money from several sources: tangible assets such as property and vessels, and bills to be paid, Ms Chng said.